RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Hugh Hefner's Incomplete Sexual Revolution Print
Sunday, 01 October 2017 08:29

Heer writes: "When Hugh Hefner launched Playboy in 1953, he could scarcely have imagined that one day he would be celebrated by conservatives and excoriated by radicals."

Hugh Hefner. (photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
Hugh Hefner. (photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)


Hugh Hefner's Incomplete Sexual Revolution

By Jeet Heer, The New Republic

01 October 17


Anti-puritan but blind to his male privilege, the Playboy mogul liberated men by demeaning women.

hen Hugh Hefner launched Playboy in 1953, he could scarcely have imagined that one day he would be celebrated by conservatives and excoriated by radicals. Publishing even a soft-core sex magazine was a subversive act in the gray-flanneled world of the 1950s. Aside from its pushing the boundaries of free expression with nude photography, there was much else about the early Playboy that marked it as a progressive publication, most notably Hefner’s outspoken advocacy of civil rights for African-Americans. When Hefner started a line of Playboy Clubs in 1960, he made them fully integrated, with black members and employees, even in the Jim Crow South. Beyond that, Hefner was a lifelong advocate of progressive causes like abortion rights and marriage equality.

Yet when Hefner’s death was announced on Wednesday, there was a discordant note on both sides of the political spectrum. Ben Domenech, the publisher of the right-wing website The Federalist, found much to admire in Hefner for “celebrating the sexual complementarity that has bound men and women together since the dawn of time.” Conversely, the left-wing magazine Current Affairs highlighted Hefner’s “totalitarian control” of the women who lived in the Playboy mansion, calling him a “tyrant” and “an abusive creep.”

There’s an element of truth to both accounts, yet they ignore Hefner’s historical impact, which was distinct from the figure Hefner cut at the end of his life. Hefner launched Playboy at a time when heterosexual monogamy was hegemonic in American culture. He led a revolt against that ideal. It offered liberation to men (including gay men), but not to women. Yet by breaking the cultural stranglehold of domesticity, Hefner opened the door for a wider sexual revolution, one that would have room for the half of the human species that Hefner himself was often hostile to.

As the historian Barbara Ehrenreich recounts in her 1983 book The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment, Playboy was fueled by rebellion against the constraints marriage put upon men. Hefner married his first wife Mildred Williams in 1949, when he was 22. Millions of other young Americans were marrying during those post-war years, which brought the U.S. marriage rate to its all time per capita peak. Many of these people, including Hefner himself, came to feel they had married too young, with too little sexual experience. Playboy was the magazine for that cohort.

The anti-matrimonial position easily shaded into a misogynist one: The first issue of Playboy featured an article warning of the danger of gold-digging women. “It was a no-holds-barred attack on ‘the whole concept of alimony,’ and secondarily, on money-hungry women in general, entitled ‘Miss Gold-Digger of 1953,” Ehrenreich wrote. “From the beginning, Playboy loved women—large-breasted, long-legged young women, anyway—and hated wives.”

If wives were a threat, then even single women, although desirable for sex, were also dangerous as potential wives. Every single woman was an enemy in embryo: a future spouse who could one day henpeck the ensnared Playboy reader. Thus, Hefner’s first editorial took a strong “no girls allowed” stance. “We want to make clear from the start, we aren’t a ‘family magazine,’” he insisted. “If you’re somebody’s sister, wife or mother-in-law and picked us up by mistake, please pass us along to the man in your life and get back to your Ladies’ Home Companion.”

Catching the rising anti-matrimonial mood, which would eventually lead to a rising divorce rate and Hefner’s own first divorce in 1959, Playboy benefitted from fortunate economic timing. Post-war American capitalism was entering its long Golden Age, from the mid-1950s to 1973, driven by the rising discretionary consumer spending of the very types of men who read Playboy. Hefner, himself a cagey capitalist, would argue that the Playboy lifestyle was “obviously desirable in our competitive, free enterprise system.”

Playboy was about lifestyle as much as sex (or rather, the sex was one of the benefits of the lifestyle). In Ehrenreich’s terms, it was a promise that men could enjoy “not the power lawn mower, but the hi-fi set in mahogany console; not the sedate, four-door Buick, but the racy little Triumph; not the well-groomed wife, but the class companion who could be rented (for the price of drinks and inner) one night at a time.” All of this added up to a “coherent program for the male rebellion: a critique of marriage, a strategy for liberation (reclaiming the indoors as a realm for masculine pleasure) and a utopian vision (defined by its unique commodity ensemble).”

What derailed the male revolt was the female revolt. Women reasonably asked themselves: If men like Hefner were abandoning the traditional claims of chivalry, then what were they offering? The answer: a patriarchy without any promise of protection—a raw deal.

Was there anything more to life than keeping a Playboy man happy? In 1963, Gloria Steinem went “undercover” as a Bunny and reported for Show magazine that far from being glamorous, the Playboy lifestyle was demeaning. Steinem’s article was an early salvo in the emerging feminist critique of Playboy. Hefner, who saw himself as helping to liberate people from sexual repression, was blind to his own privileged position as a man; he reacted to these critiques with defensive ill-temper. In 1969, Playboy editors commissioned journalist Susan Braudy to investigate the feminist movement. When she came back with a fair-minded and complex report, Hefner was infuriated. In a memo on Braudy’s article, Hefner wrote:

The women’s movement is rejecting the overall roles that men and women play in our society—the notion that there should be any differences between the sexes whatever other than the physiological ones. It is an extremely anti-sexual unnatural thing they are reaching for. It is now up to us to do a really expert, personal demolition job.... These chicks are our natural enemy.

Within the space of a decade and a half, Hefner went from being a radical to a reactionary. His brand of sexual revolution had nothing to offer women (other than the right to be a Bunny). In the face of feminist criticism, Hefner was unwilling to revise his sexual politics to make them more inclusive. Playboy would cease to change in any meaningful way, but become trapped in its original premises. And Hefner himself became increasingly anachronistic as the years went by, living in the fantasy world of his mansion, forever in his bed clothes: the sexual radical as Dorian Gray.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I'm an 80-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor. Antifas Aren't Scary. Neo-Nazis Are Print
Sunday, 01 October 2017 08:27

Roose writes: "It was my first encounter with the Antifas, the young militant antifascists who have been vilified in some of the media for their tactics. So even though I was afraid of Gibson and his thugs, I felt comforted, not by the presence of any police officer that day, but by the presence of the Antifas."

Antifa members and counter protesters gather at the 
rightwing No To Marxism rally on August 27, 2017 at Martin Luther King 
Jr. Park in Berkeley, California. (photo: Amy Osborne/AFP/Getty Images)
Antifa members and counter protesters gather at the rightwing No To Marxism rally on August 27, 2017 at Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Berkeley, California. (photo: Amy Osborne/AFP/Getty Images)


I'm an 80-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor. Antifas Aren't Scary. Neo-Nazis Are

By Barbara Roose, Yes! Magazine

01 October 17


More than 70 years after hiding in a Berlin cellar, I’m faced once again with neo-Nazis spewing and spreading their hate and beliefs around white supremacy.

t a recent anti-hate rally in Berkeley, Joey Gibson, leader of the extreme right-wing, white supremacist group, Patriot Prayer, strolled directly in front of me—his three burly bodyguards in tow. A few people nearby pointed him out, shouting his name.

I had an immediate visceral reaction to the sight of this man, whom I consider to be a neo-Nazi. To my eyes, Gibson and his men were angling for conflict; their swagger left no doubt. And I stood there shaking, my homemade sign in hand. “Hate speech leads to Holocaust,” it read.

I am an 80-year-old Holocaust survivor.

We learned that the young men and women around us, dressed in all black, were trained not to engage in confrontations, except to protect demonstrators like us if we were attacked by white supremacists like Gibson.

It was my first encounter with the Antifas, the young militant antifascists who have been vilified in some of the media for their tactics. So even though I was afraid of Gibson and his thugs, I felt comforted, not by the presence of any police officer that day, but by the presence of the Antifas. I feel gratitude to these young people for being our first line of defense, for being willing to stand up to the hateful actions of neo-Nazis and white nationalists, like Gibson.

I know from experience what it feels like not to feel protected. And I’ve seen first-hand the impact hate speech, under the guise of free speech, can have. As a child in Nazi Germany, I saw young boys and girls being indoctrinated into becoming mass murderers of their neighbors. Later I learned how grown men, crippled by fear, were rendered incapable of protecting their loved ones. I learned that a crowd could be moved to heinous actions.

From the time I was 5, I was told never to mention that our mother was Jewish. This was about the time my half-sister, my father’s oldest daughter from his first marriage, unexpectedly came to live with us. She had seen her mother and stepfather violently removed from their home, never to be seen again.

When I was 8, two sinister-looking Gestapo, the secret Nazi police, knocked on the door of our makeshift bomb shelter, a converted coal cellar. The city was under the final heavy bomb attacks of the Allied Forces. And the men had demanded that my mother accompany them, threatening to set their dog on her and shoot her if she tried to escape.

Everybody in the cellar with us that day knew that my mother’s only crime in life was being a Jew, defined not by her profession of a given religious preference but by racial law. Yet no one dared to speak up for this mother of three young children. Nobody said a word of encouragement as she was torn away from her children. Nobody demanded these men desist from sending one more Jew to her death in a concentration camp.

The time without our mother seemed endless. We were scared and hungry in that poorly lit, cold and uncomfortable cellar. Some of the neighbors had told us my mother would never return, and they had begun to discuss with which of them each of us children would have to live. My mother managed to escape and come back to us. But for the rest of my life, I have remembered the fear that crept over me as I faced the possibility of never seeing her again.

Soon the bombing ceased, and the Soviet Army liberated our neighborhood. But I saw the photos in the newspapers of some of the millions who had not been as lucky as we had, who had had no one to protect them. I could not trust that such an experience would not repeat itself.

In 1947, my mother, my younger brother and I immigrated to Venezuela and learned there what life was like under a long military Latin American style dictatorship. Once again, I saw how some people were scared and read how some were detained, deported, and even killed. Again, I was not sure who would defend us if something happened to our family.

And when I came to study in the U.S. in 1955, in what I had erroneously believed was the cradle of freedom, I had a real-life crash course in the lack of civil rights for people of color, the murderous laws still prevalent in many Southern states, and the education, employment, and housing discrimination in the North. I later learned a startling truth: that the racial laws of the Nazis, which categorized me as a Jew of the Second Degree (mother a Jew, father not), were based on U.S. race laws. I had fallen for some of the powerful propaganda this country disseminates abroad through its mass media. But I woke up and got involved. I learned to speak up and organize for civil rights, against the war in Vietnam, and later against the many invasions of other countries and ongoing discrimination.

And now here I am, more than 70 years after walking out of that dank cellar in a Berlin neighborhood, faced once again with neo-Nazis spewing and spreading their hate and beliefs around white supremacy. Their goal is to create divisions in university towns such as Berkeley, hoping that they can sow seeds of discord and animus among students. And that scares me.

Far too many people in this country are still excluded and even killed for reasons that were also used during World War II to send populations to the gas chambers. We don’t have concentration camps as such in the U.S., but the prison-industrial complex is thriving and ever-expanding immigrant detention centers are crowded and inhumane.

So, yes, I am scared of what fascists can do. I have little confidence that local police—ever more heavily armed with military weaponry and unskilled in dealing with the vulnerable in our societies—will protect those confronted by the neo-Nazis.

Recently I was kept awake by news helicopters flying overhead to capture the anticipated confrontations between people attempting to hear a prominent white supremacist and those expected to protest his presence on University of California, Berkeley, campus. Professors and students had called for a walkout and suspension of classes. Now the university has ordered a week of free speech with guest speakers I feel are more interested in hate speech, among them Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos. What irony, I thought, that a university noted for its student-led, anti-war and free speech movements during the 1960s, would host a roster of speakers, not a single one a defender of human rights. Are universities silencing ideas, as was the case in Nazi Germany? Is the climate so unsafe that students and professors prefer to cancel classes?

As the Trump administration has threatened to deport “Dreamers,” young immigrants brought as children to this country, I recall the Nazi laws that forced students classified as undesirable in the Third Reich to abandon their dreams for a future.

In Arizona and other school systems in the U.S, efforts have been made to ban books to exclude from their curricula the rich histories of the multiple nationalities that make up this nation.

Brown and black children and youth receive criminal treatment for minor infractions and, along with their families, live under constant threats to their lives, as statistics of death and incarcerations prove. Many of these children and youth attend underfinanced and inadequately staffed schools, deprived of the kind of education every child deserves—in much the way my siblings and I were barred from schools in Germany.

Make no mistake, these neo-Nazis and white supremacists are serious. The recent murders in Portland and Charlottesville demonstrate that. In Europe, different generations of young antifascists committed to preventing acts of violence to vulnerable populations, resurface from time to time. I feel comforted by the fact that these young antifascists exist here in America, too.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Deadly Narcissism Print
Saturday, 30 September 2017 14:01

Krugman writes: "According to a new Quinnipiac poll, a majority of Americans believe that Donald Trump is unfit to be president. That's pretty remarkable. But you have to wonder how much higher the number would be if people really knew what's going on."

Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Forbes)
Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Forbes)


Trump's Deadly Narcissism

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

30 September 17

 

ccording to a new Quinnipiac poll, a majority of Americans believe that Donald Trump is unfit to be president. That’s pretty remarkable. But you have to wonder how much higher the number would be if people really knew what’s going on.

For the trouble with Trump isn’t just what he’s doing, but what he isn’t. In his mind, it’s all about him — and while he’s stroking his fragile ego, basic functions of government are being neglected or worse.

Let’s talk about two stories that might seem separate: the deadly neglect of Puerto Rico, and the ongoing sabotage of American health care. What these stories have in common is that millions of Americans are going to suffer, and hundreds if not thousands die, because Trump and his officials are too self-centered to do their jobs.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: In Maria's Wake, Could Puerto Rico Go Totally Green? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6004"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 30 September 2017 11:58

Wasserman writes: "The ecological and humanitarian destruction of Puerto Rico has left the world aghast. But there is a hopeful green-powered opportunity in this disaster that could vastly improve the island's future while offering the world a critical showcase for a sane energy future."

Puerto Rico's best hope for a safe, prosperous, sustainable energy future is to take control of its power supply. (photo: ICTSD)
Puerto Rico's best hope for a safe, prosperous, sustainable energy future is to take control of its power supply. (photo: ICTSD)


In Maria's Wake, Could Puerto Rico Go Totally Green?

By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

30 September 17

 

he ecological and humanitarian destruction of Puerto Rico has left the world aghast. But there is a hopeful, green-powered opportunity in this disaster that could vastly improve the island’s future while offering the world a critical showcase for a sane energy future.

By all accounts, Hurricane Maria has leveled much of the island and literally left it in the dark. Puerto Rico’s electrical grid has been extensively damaged, with no prospects for a return to conventionally generated and distributed power for months to come.

In response, Donald Trump has scolded the island for its massive debt and waited a full week after the storm hit to lift a shipping restriction requiring all incoming goods to be carried on US-flagged ships. (That restriction is largely responsible for the island’s economic problems in the first place.)

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority is a state-owned operation that hosts a number of solar and wind farms, as well as a network of hydroelectric dams. But the bulk of its energy supply has come from heavy industrial oil, diesel, and gas burners. It also burns coal imported from Colombia at a plant in Guyana.

The fossil burners themselves apparently were left mostly undamaged by Maria. But the delivery system, a traditional network of above-ground poles and wires, has essentially been obliterated. Power authority officials say it could take at least 4 to 6 months to rebuild that network.

And of course, there is no guaranteeing that such a pole-and-wire set-up would not be obliterated by the next storm.

Among the most serious casualties have been the island’s hospitals. According to reports, 58 of Puerto Rico’s 69 medical facilities have been blacked out. At least two people died when intensive care units went dark.

But therein lies the opportunity. With solar panels and battery backups, every one of those hospitals could be energy self-sufficient. Throughout the U.S. such technology is now being applied at medical facilities, data processing and storage facilities, and other critical units.

According to Mark Sommer, a California-based energy expert, Puerto Rico could safeguard such critical facilities and far more quickly restore its power by letting go of the old paradigm of central-generated and distributed electricity, and moving instead to a decentralized network of green-based micro-grids.

Micro-grids are community-based networks that power smaller geographic and consumer areas than the big central grids like the one that served Puerto Rico. Mostly they are based on decentralized generation, including networks of rooftop solar panels. As Sommer puts it: “Renewably powered microgrids are a relatively simple and already mature technology that can be deployed in months rather than years and once the initial investment is recovered deliver dramatically lower energy bills.”

Because Puerto Rico is mountainous and hosts many small, remote villages, the island’s best hope for a manageable energy future is with decentralized power production in self-sustaining neighborhoods. Built around small-scale wind and solar arrays, with battery backups protected from inevitable floods and hurricanes, Puerto Rico could protect its electricity supply from the next natural disaster while building up a healthy, low-cost energy economy.

The island is also a good source of sugar cane and other fast-growing tropical vegetation, making a strong case for biomass sources like ethanol. Much of Brazil’s automobile fleet runs at least partly on fuel produced by fermenting bagasse, a by-product of the country’s huge sugar cane crop.

With local financing and ownership, the prospects for a sun-drenched ecosystem like Puerto Rico’s to go to renewable-based micro-grids are overwhelming. In terms of cost, immediacy, immunity from the next hurricane, and long-term sustainability, this is a tragic but unique opportunity.

There is little precedent for an entire geographic entity to lose 100% of its grid. We can expect a deaf ear on this from a Trump administration dominated by the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries.

But to rebuild Puerto Rico’s electric grid in a traditional, centralized fashion would only prolong Maria’s agony while leaving the island deathly vulnerable to the next big wind storm.

Puerto Rico’s best hope for a safe, prosperous, sustainable energy future is to take control of its power supply with a mix of renewable generation, protected backup storage, and a decentralized, locally based network of community-owned micro-grids.



Harvey Wasserman’s America at the Brink of Rebirth: The Organic Spiral of Us History can be had via www.solartopia.org. The Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft, co-written with Bob Fitrakis, is at www.freepress.org.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: For Progressives, Winning Is a Moral Imperative. The Stakes Are Too High for Anything Less. Print
Saturday, 30 September 2017 11:19

Klein writes: "It's bleak out there. How do I begin to describe a world upside down? From heads of state tweeting threats of nuclear annihilation, to whole regions rocked by climate chaos, to thousands of migrants drowning off the coasts of Europe, to openly racist parties gaining ground, most recently and alarmingly in Germany."

Naomi Klein. (photo: Ed Kashi)
Naomi Klein. (photo: Ed Kashi)


For Progressives, Winning Is a Moral Imperative. The Stakes Are Too High for Anything Less.

By Naomi Klein, LabourList

30 September 17


"This is the full text of the speech delivered at Labour conference’s international slot by author and campaigner Naomi Klein."

hank you Kate for that lovely introduction and all the work that you do to put social justice on the world agenda.

It’s been such a privilege to be part of this historic convention. To feel its energy and optimism.

Because friends, it’s bleak out there. How do I begin to describe a world upside down? From heads of state tweeting threats of nuclear annihilation, to whole regions rocked by climate chaos, to thousands of migrants drowning off the coasts of Europe, to openly racist parties gaining ground, most recently and alarmingly in Germany.

Most days there is simply too much to take in. So I want to start with an example that might seem small against such a vast backdrop. The Caribbean and Southern United States are in the midst of an unprecedented hurricane season: pounded by storm after record-breaking storm.

As we meet, Puerto Rico – hit by Irma, then Maria – is without power and could be for months. It’s water and communication systems are also severely compromised. Three and half million US citizens on that island are in desperate need of their government’s help.

But just like during Hurricane Katrina, the cavalry is missing in action. Donald Trump is too busy trying to get Black athletes fired – smearing them for daring to shine a spotlight on racist violence.

Amazingly a real federal aid package for Puerto Rico has not yet been announced.

By some reports, more money has been spent securing presidential trips to Mar-a-Lago.

As if all this weren’t enough, the vultures are now buzzing. The business press is filled with articles about how the only way for Puerto Rico to get the lights back on is to sell off its electricity utility. Maybe its roads and bridges too.

This is a phenomenon I have called The Shock Doctrine – the exploitation of wrenching crises to smuggle through policies that devour the public sphere and further enrich a small elite.

We see this dismal cycle repeat again and again. We saw it after the 2008 financial crash. We are already seeing it in how the Tories are planning to exploit Brexit to push through disastrous pro-corporate trade deals without debate.

The reason I am highlighting Puerto Rico is because the situation is so urgent. But also because it’s a microcosm of a much larger global crisis, one that contains many of the same overlapping elements: accelerating climate chaos; militarism; histories of colonialism; a weak and neglected public sphere; a totally dysfunctional democracy.

And overlaying it all: the seemingly bottomless capacity to discount the lives of huge numbers of Black and brown people.

Ours is an age when it is impossible to pry one crisis apart from all the others. They have all merged, reinforcing and deepening each other….. like one shambling, multi-headed beast.

I think it’s helpful to think of the current US president in much the same way.

It’s tough to know how to adequately sum him up. So let me try a local example.

You know that horrible thing currently clogging up the London sewers. I believe you call it the fatberg?

Well Trump, he’s the political equivalent of that.

A merger of all that is noxious in the culture, economy and body politic, all kind of glommed together in a self-adhesive mass. And we’re finding it very, very hard to dislodge.

It gets so grim that we have to laugh. But make no mistake: whether it’s climate change or the nuclear threat, Trump represents a crisis that could echo through geologic time.

But here is my message to you today:

Moments of crisis do not have to go the Shock Doctrine route – they do not need to become opportunities for the already obscenely wealthy to grab still more.

They can also go the opposite way.

They can be moments when we find our best selves….. when we locate reserves of strength and focus we never knew we had.

We see it at the grassroots level every time disaster strikes.

We all witnessed it in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower catastrophe.

When the people responsible were MIA……. the community came together…… Held one another in their care, organized the donations and advocated for the living — and for the dead.

And they are doing it still, more than 100 days after the fire.

When there is still no justice and, scandalously, only a handful of survivors have been rehoused.

And it’s not only at the grassroots level that we see disaster awaken something remarkable in us.

There is also a long and proud history of crises sparking progressive transformation on a society-wide scale.

Think of the victories won by working people for social housing and old age pensions during the Great Depression….. Or for the NHS after the horrors of the Second World War.

This should remind us that moments of great crisis and peril do not necessarily need to knock us backwards.

They can also catapult us forward.

Our progressive ancestors achieved that at key moments in history, in your country and in mine.

And we can do it again – in this moment when everything is on the line.

But what we know from the Great Depression and the post-war period, is that we never win these transformative victories by simply resisting….. by simply saying “no” to the latest outrage.

To win in a moment of true crisis, we also need a bold and forward-looking “yes”- a plan for how to rebuild and respond to the underlying causes.

And that plan needs to be convincing, credible and, most of all, captivating.

We have to help a weary and wary public to imagine itself into that better world.

And that is why I am so honoured to be standing with you today.

With the transformed Labour Party in 2017.

And with the next Prime Minister of Britain,

Jeremy Corbyn.

Because in the last election, that’s exactly what you did.

Theresa May ran a cynical campaign based on exploiting fear and shock to grab more power for herself – first the fear of a bad Brexit deal, then the fear following the horrific terror attacks in Manchester and London.

Your party and your leader responded by focusing on root causes: a failed “war on terror”…. economic inequality and weakened democracy.

But you did more than that.

You presented voters with a bold and detailed Manifesto.

One that laid out a plan for millions of people to have tangibly better lives:

  • free tuition,

  • fully funded health care,

  • aggressive climate action.

After decades of lowered expectations and asphyxiated political imagination, finally voters had something hopeful and exciting to say “yes” to.

And so many of them did just that, upending the projections of the entire expert class.

You proved that the era of triangulation and tinkering is over.

The public is hungry for deep change – they are crying out for it.

The trouble is, in far too many countries, it’s only the far right that is offering it, or seeming to, with that toxic combination of fake economic populism and very real racism.

You showed us another way.

One that speaks the language of decency and fairness, that names the true forces most responsible for this mess – no matter how powerful.

And that is unafraid of some of the ideas we were told were gone for good.

Like wealth redistribution.

And nationalising essential public services.

Now, thanks to all of your boldness, we know that this isn’t just a moral strategy.

It’s a winning strategy.

It fires up the base, and it activates constituencies that long ago stopped voting altogether.

If you can keep doing that between now and the next election, you will be unbeatable.

You showed us something else in the last election too, and it’s just as important.

You showed that political parties don’t need to fear the creativity and independence of social movements – and social movements, likewise, have a huge amount to gain from engaging with electoral politics.

That’s a very big deal.

Because let’s be honest: political parties tend to be a bit freakish about control.

And real grassroots movements….. we cherish our independence – and we’re pretty much impossible to control.

But what we are seeing with the remarkable relationship between Labour and Momentum, and with other wonderful campaign organizations, is that it is possible to combine the best of both worlds.

If we listen and learn from each other, we can create a force that is both stronger and more nimble than anything either parties or movements can pull off on their own.

I want you to know that what you have done here is reverberating around the world – so many of us are watching your ongoing experiment in this new kind of politics with rapt attention.

And of course what happened here is itself part of a global phenomenon.

It’s a wave led by young people who came into adulthood just as the global financial system was collapsing and just as climate disruption was banging down the door.

Many come out of social movements like Occupy Wall Street, and Spain’s Indignados.

They began by saying no –

  • to austerity,

  • to bank bailouts,

  • to fracking and pipelines.

But they came to understand that the biggest challenge is overcoming the way neoliberalism has waged war on our collective imagination, on our ability to truly believe in anything outside of its bleak borders.

And so these movements started to dream together, laying out bold and different visions of the future…. and credible pathways out of crisis.

And most importantly they began engaging with political parties, to try to win power.

We saw it in Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign in the US primaries…. which was powered by millennials who know that safe centrist politics offers them no kind of safe future.

By the way…. Bernie, is the most popular politician in the United States today.

We see something similar with Spain’s still-young Podemos party, which built in the power of mass movements from Day One.

In all of these cases, electoral campaigns caught fire with stunning speed.

And they got close to taking power – closer than any genuinely transformative political program has in either Europe or North America in my lifetime.

But still, in each case, not close enough.

So in this time between elections, it’s worth thinking about how to make absolutely sure that next time, all of our movements go all the way.

A big part of the answer is: Keeping it up.

Keep building that yes.

But take it even further.

Outside the heat of a campaign, there is more time to deepen the relationships between issues and movements, so that our solutions address multiple crises at once.

In all of our countries, we can and must do more to connect the dots between economic injustice, racial injustice and gender injustice.

We need to understand and explain how all of those ugly systems that place one group in a position of dominance over another – based on skin colour, religious faith, gender and sexual orientation – consistently serve the interests of power and money and always have.

They do it by keeping us divided.

And keeping themselves protected.

And we have to do more to keep it front of mind…. that we are in a state of climate emergency….  the roots of which are found in the same system of bottomless greed that underlies our economic emergency.

But states of emergency, let’s recall, can be catalysts for deep progressive victories.

So let’s draw out the connections between the gig economy – that treats human beings like a raw resource from which to extract wealth and then discard – and the dig economy, in which the extractive companies treats the Earth in precisely the same careless way.

And let’s show exactly how we can move from that gig and dig economy to a society based on principles of care – caring for the planet and for one another. Where the work of our caregivers and of our land and water protectors, is respected and valued. A world where no one and nowhere is thrown away – whether in fire-trap housing estates or on hurricane-ravaged islands.

I applaud the clear stand Labour has taken against fracking and for clean energy. Now we need to up our ambition and show exactly how battling climate change is a once-in-a-century chance to build a fairer and more democratic economy.

Because as we rapidly transition off fossil fuels, we cannot replicate the wealth concentration and the injustices of the oil and coal economy, in which hundreds of billions in profits have been privatized and the tremendous risks are socialized.

We can and must design a system in which the polluters pay a very large share of the cost of transitioning off fossil fuels. And where we keep green energy in public and community hands. That way revenues stay in your communities, to pay for childcare and firefighters and other crucial services. And it’s the only way to make sure that the green jobs that are created are union jobs that pay a living wage.

The motto needs to be: leave the oil and gas in the ground, but leave no worker behind. And the best part, you don’t need to wait until you get to Westminster to start this great transition. You can use the levers you have right now.

You can take a page from Barcelona and turn your Labour-controlled cities into beacons for the world transformed.

A good start would be divesting your pensions from fossil fuels and investing that money in low carbon social housing and green energy cooperatives.

That way people can begin to experience the benefits of the next economy before the next election – and know in their bones that yes, there is, and always has been, an alternative.

In closing…..

I want to stress, as your international speaker, that none of this can be about turning any one nation into a progressive museum.

In wealthy countries like yours and mine, we need migration policies and levels of international financing that reflect what we owe to the global south – our historic role in destabilizing the economies and ecologies of poorer nations for a great many years.

For instance, during this epic hurricane season, we’ve heard a lot of talk of “the British Virgin Islands,” the “French Virgin Islands” and so on.

Rarely was it seen as relevant to observe that these are not reflections of where Europeans like to holiday.

They are reflections of the fact that so much of the vast wealth of empire was extracted from these Islands in bonded human flesh.

Wealth that supercharged Europe’s and North America’s industrial revolution, positioning us as the super-polluters we are today.

And that is intimately connected to the fact that the future and security of island nations are now at grave risk from superstorms storms, sea level rise, and dying coral reefs.

What should this painful history mean to us today?

It means welcoming migrants and refugees.

And it means paying our fair share to help many more countries ramp up justice-based green transitions of their own.

Trump going rogue is no excuse to demand less of ourselves in the UK and Canada or anywhere else for that matter.

It means the opposite -that we have to demand more of ourselves.

To pick up the slack until the United States manages to get its sewer system unclogged.

I firmly believe that all of this work, challenging as it is, is a crucial part of the path to victory.

That the more ambitious, consistent and holistic you can be in painting a picture of the world transformed, the more credible a Labour government will become.

Because you went and showed us all that you can win.

Now you have to win.

We all do.

Winning is a moral imperative.

The stakes are too high, and time is too short, to settle for anything less.

Thank you


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 Next > End >>

Page 1492 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN